Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Sanctuary Housing Association (202318542)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318542

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests, including:
    1. Noise nuisance from an extractor fan
    2. Faulty communal lights
    3. Emergency lift repairs
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord since 10 August 2020. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a 7-storey block. The resident reports multiple additional needs.
  2. On 22 July 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was bumping and grinding noises from the lift. On 23 July 2023, she reported that an extractor fan had been installed in the flat below her which was causing nuisance as she was sensitive to sounds.
  3. On 25 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy because the extractor fan in the flat below her was on continuously which was causing noise nuisance. She further complained that lights in the communal areas were not switched off during the day.
  4. On 8 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It noted that the resident was unhappy with a fault with the communal lighting and noise from an extractor fan. It said it would attend to the issues on 15 August 2023. It found no service failing because the complaint was the first notification that the landlord received about the issues.
  5. On 8 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that the landlord deprived her of access to the switch board which controlled the electrics in the flat below. She said she suffered from hypersensitivity which made the constant noise from the fan unbearable. She said that the light on during the day in the communal area was to make her life impossible and would increase service charges. She said that the landlord failed to address the issue of the emergency repair on the lift in its complaint response.
  6. On 8 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said that it had inspected the extractor fan in the flat below and found that it had been working correctly. It apologised for the noise but said that it found no changes to the extractor fan that would mean it was on for longer or was louder than usual. It would have an electrician investigate also to see if there was an issue which would increase the noise level. It said that the communal lights were converted from fluorescent to LED which used less energy and a timer system would not be cost effective. It acknowledged that there was a delay in repairing the lift, apologised and offered £100 for that failing. It identified complaint handling failings and offered a further £250 for those failings.
  7. On 8 November 2023, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that the landlord’s actions were a breach of her tenancy. She said that the landlord intended to repossess her property. As a resolution to the complaint the resident wanted
    1. £4000 to cover refurbishment costs of her flat
    2. £600 for expenses as she changed locks on the doors
    3. £1000 to cover the cost of a move from the property

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. On 13 August 2023, after the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord, she raised a number of new issues which were not part of the original complaint including its eviction process, its tenancy sign-up, and staff conduct. The resident brought these further issues to the Ombudsman. These further issues have not been included in this investigation. This is because we may only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. This investigation has focussed only on the issues considered at all stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord must have an opportunity to address all issues and put things right for the resident. It is noted that the landlord met with the resident and an MP who acted on her behalf to discuss the further issues raised. Should the resident remain unhappy she may wish to raise a complaint with the landlord.

        The landlord’s response to repair requests

  1. Where a repair is raised, the law states that a landlord must inspect to determine if it is responsible to repair. Where the landlord is responsible, it must conduct a repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the facts, including the type of repair. In most cases, landlords have repairs policies which set out when repairs ought to be completed.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its timeframes for responding to repair requests. It states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and appointed repairs within 28 days.

Noise nuisance from an extractor fan

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that the noise generated from the extractor fan in the flat below was “within acceptable limits” but that it would investigate if it could be switched off at night to support the resident’s request. It is not clear how the landlord concluded at that stage that there was no fault with the extractor fan. However, it was appropriate that the landlord continued to investigate the issue to see if it could make adjustments in support of the resident.
  2. The flat below the resident was used by guests of the residents of the block. The landlord checked the extractor fans on 13 September 2023 and found they were in proper working order and would only be in operation when the rooms were booked out to guests. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that it had investigated the extractor fan noise but found no issue or changes to the extractor fan that would mean that it was on for a longer period of time or that it was louder than usual. It said that it would send an electrician to investigate the issue also. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to investigate the resident’s concerns.
  3. On 10 November 2023, the landlord overhauled the extractor fan but found no fault with it. This information was provided to the resident’s MP on 1 December 2023. It advised that the extractor fan would be in use if the guest room was booked out and the bathroom was in use. The landlord further advised that the resident was not permitted to switch off the electrics in the guest flat. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
  4. Based on the evidence, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance was reasonable. It appropriately investigated the issue and provided the resident with its outcome through its complaint response.

Faulty communal lights

  1. As part of her complaint, the resident reported that communal lights were left on during daytime hours. On 7 August 2023, the landlord advised the resident that some communal corridors and landings were dark even during daytime hours. It said that it would have to consult with other residents of the estate before making changes to the communal lighting while considering the health and safety of the residents. It said it would need to investigate if it was even possible to change the duration that the lights were on for. This was a reasonable initial response to the resident’s enquiry.
  2. On 30 October 2023, internal emails of the landlord show that the landlord had considered the resident’s concern. The landlord’s records show that 7 years previously it changed the communal lighting from fluorescent lighting to LED lighting as they use less energy. When it upgraded the lighting, it decided not to install daylight sensors in areas where the light level was unlikely to reach decent levels even during daytime hours. It said that it had previously considered installing timers however the wiring of existing lighting would mean it would not be cost effective to make these changes. It further said that timers and automation were the top cause of call outs for communal lighting systems.
  3. The landlord provided this information to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. Based on the evidence, the landlord carried out a comprehensive investigation into the resident’s concerns about faulty communal lights. It found no faults with the communal lights and provided its reasoning for having lights on all the time in some areas. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s complaint and demonstrated that it gave due consideration to the residents concerns.

Emergency lift repairs

  1. On 22 July 2023, the resident reported noises from the lift. The lift was still in service but the resident was concerned that it may not be safe to use. The landlord surveyed the lift on 3 August 2023 and found that it required a specialist contractor to complete the works. It attended and completed the repair on 30 August 2023.
  2. Based on this evidence, it is not clear if the lift was out of service for this period of time, but in any case, the resident reported concern in using it because of the noise. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for the inconvenience and offered redress of £100. The Ombudsman finds that this was reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion

  1. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident when it identified service failures in response to the service requests it had received. This investigation found that it gave due consideration to the residents concerns about noise nuisance from an extractor fan and faulty communal lights. When it identified a service failure in its lift repairs, it apologised and offered compensation which was appropriate in the circumstances.

        Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 November 2023, which was 46 working days beyond the timeframe for providing a stage 2 complaint response. The resident reported that she felt that the landlord had “belittled” her complaint by the delay in escalating it to stage 2.
  3. The landlord accepted this service failure in its stage 2 complaint response and acknowledged that its communication with her had been poor. It apologised and offered compensation of £250 for this complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman finds that this was a reasonable offer of redress to put things right for the resident in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its response to the resident’s repair requests which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with its complaint handling prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £350 that it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.